FILE:
Case # 1502 (2022-2023)
DATE:
May 29, 2023
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. H.Z. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE(S):
May 3, 2023, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Sana Halwani, Chair
Dr. Lynda Mainwaring, Faculty Panel Member
Syeda Hasan, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Christopher Lang, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty of Grievances
The Student was charged with knowingly obtaining and/or providing unauthorized assistance in connection with two term tests in ECO2201Y1 (“the Course”), contrary to s. B.i.1(b) of the Code. In the alternative, the Student was charged under s. B.i.1(d) of the Code for knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in connection with the term tests. In the further alternative, the Student was charged with knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code to obtain academic credit or advantage, contrary to s. B.i.3(b) of the Code. The Panel was informed at the hearing that the University was not proceeding with the charges related to the second term test and only the charges pertaining to Term Test 1 were at issue.
The Student did not attend the hearing and was not represented by counsel. The Panel heard evidence that the University had made serious efforts to serve the Student with notice, through email and telephone, and through courier delivery. The Panel found that reasonable notice of the hearing was provided in accordance with the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure and was content to proceed without the Student.
The Student was enrolled in the Course in Fall 2020 and Winter 2021. The Course was taught online due to the pandemic. The term tests, including Term Test 1, were administered online. The Course syllabus stated that students were prohibited from collaborating on the term tests. In March 2021, a teaching assistant notified the instructor that a phrase kept appearing in student answers for the third term test. After detailed investigation, the teaching team found that a large number of students had collaborated on some or all of the term tests. The Course instructor suspected that the Student and another student (“N.G.”) collaborated on Term Test 1 due to the striking similarities between their answers to several questions on the test. The instructor noted that despite the various ways students could have responded to the questions, the answers of the Student and N.G. were very similar in terms of word choice, syntax, structure, and quantitative analysis. The Student and N.G. also made identical or very similar mistakes in answers to several questions.
After deliberation and based on the evidence and the University’s Book of Documents, the Panel found that there was clear evidence, on a balance of probabilities, that the Student was guilty under s. B.i.1(b) of the Code. The Panel found the Student guilty of the first charge and the University withdrew the two alternative charges.
In determining the appropriate sanctions, the Panel considered the Student’s character and extenuating or mitigating factors. The Panel found no evidence for character, remorse, or extenuating circumstance, as the Student did not participate in the proceedings. The Panel also considered the likelihood of repetition, finding it to be a neutral factor as the Student had no prior offences. With respect to the nature of the offence, deterrence, and detriment to the University, similar to a previous case, the Panel found the use of unauthorized aids to be a threat to the University’s reputation and required sanction. The Panel considered the Provost’s Guidance and prior similar cases. The Panel also considered whether the widespread cheating in the Course should bear weight on the sanction and found that it should not, as there was no evidence of it being an aggravating or mitigating factor. There was also no evidence that warranted backdating the sanction in this case. Thus, the Panel agreed with the University’s requested penalty.
The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a grade assignment of zero in the course; a two-year suspension; a three-year notation on the Student’s transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.